Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, for the longest time everyone kept using library support as an excuse for sticking with 2. But at this point I think it's the exception that a decent Python library doesn't support 3, rather than the rule. The only one that comes to mind for me is fabric, to be honest.
> The only one that comes to mind for me is fabric Speaking of Fabric, does anyone know of any Python 3 projects similar to it? I've been using Fabric3 since the switch but it's not a 1:1 port. I'd consider dropping it in favor of something better if it exists.
Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
41–50 of 390 posts
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It replaces one set of quirky hacks for a different set, just in different parts of your code. So in a way it's no worse. I have to say I was sceptical of Ruby 1.9's new approach to Unicode thinking Python 3.0's approach looked much cleaner. It does on paper. In practice though, I have to admit I get where Ruby was going with it all now.
I wonder if this has anything to do with Matz being Japanese. I do my best to avoid Unicode at all costs because as a native English speaker ASCII was working out great for me.
Even if you're only shipping to an English-speaking US audience, people are still going to be throwing Unicode at your app. One word: emojis.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#43Good. The glacial migration from Python 2 to 3 is one of the worst things about an otherwise fantastic ecosystem. The tide is turning though, with Django having already dropped support for 2, and now with Numpy too hopefully Python 2 can be properly consigned to the history books. For people wondering why it's been like this for almost a decade(!) since Python 3.0 was released: Python 3.0 was actually terrible. It la…
Frankly, I still haven't seen a single reason to switch to Python3 beyond the fact that the original authors have gotten bored of providing security and bugfix updates and will stop in 2020. That's it.
The only thing in the last decade or so of Python3's existence that even got me slightly interested in using it was asyncio, and after looking into it a bit, it frankly seems like more trouble than its worth.
I know Python 2.7 extremely well. It works perfectly fine for just about everything I use it for. It's STABLE. For the tasks I use it for, it runs faster than Python3... (Not that performance is my greatest concern when using Python.) So, please tell me -- why on earth is it a good thing that people are trying to kill off Python2? What exactly makes Python 3.6 a "decent step up" from 2.7? I'm still at the point of thinking, as you said, that Python3 is a bad thing.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#44That’s about the same time python 2 support drops in general. Sounds strange to support packages after the underlying python has moved on. Kudos to the numpy team for writing the most awesome python module under the sun, and for providing great support!
It's not strange. Python developers might declare Python 2.X EOLed, but that won't stop people from using it. Like it or not, Python 2.X is not going away.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#45Good. The glacial migration from Python 2 to 3 is one of the worst things about an otherwise fantastic ecosystem. The tide is turning though, with Django having already dropped support for 2, and now with Numpy too hopefully Python 2 can be properly consigned to the history books. For people wondering why it's been like this for almost a decade(!) since Python 3.0 was released: Python 3.0 was actually terrible. It la…
Frankly, I still haven't seen a single reason to switch to Python3 beyond the fact that the original authors have gotten bored of providing security and bugfix updates and will stop in 2020. That's it. The only thing in the last decade or so of Python3's existence that even got me slightly interested in using it was asyncio, and after looking into it a bit, it frankly seems like more trouble than its worth. I know Py…
Because Python 2 is an objectively worse language. Do we have to pretend this is still an argument? Do we have to rehash this? The reasons are well known. Do your damn research.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#46It would be interesting to see whether Python 2 is the longest supported major version for a programming language.
Picking a version longevity winner probably depends on whether you mean specification, or implementation.
ANSI Common Lisp was standardized in 1994, and there have been no updates to the language since then. There are several supported implementations (though the implementations have probably all incremented their major version at least once since then).
It seems that JavaScript gave up numbering at 1.8.5 [1], so you might consider it to still be on "JavaScript 1.x", which dates back to 1996.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Version_history
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
And of the 13 not migrated, 9 are Mozilla packages, so they're probably just waiting to write them all in Rust...
Those are internal tools at best so it won't matter that much for migration.
That list is of the top packages. If internal Mozilla tools are downloaded enough to become top 200, then either Mozilla is larger than I thought or Python is smaller than I thought.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#48Good. The glacial migration from Python 2 to 3 is one of the worst things about an otherwise fantastic ecosystem. The tide is turning though, with Django having already dropped support for 2, and now with Numpy too hopefully Python 2 can be properly consigned to the history books. For people wondering why it's been like this for almost a decade(!) since Python 3.0 was released: Python 3.0 was actually terrible. It la…
Frankly, I still haven't seen a single reason to switch to Python3 beyond the fact that the original authors have gotten bored of providing security and bugfix updates and will stop in 2020. That's it. The only thing in the last decade or so of Python3's existence that even got me slightly interested in using it was asyncio, and after looking into it a bit, it frankly seems like more trouble than its worth. I know Py…
The change to string handling justifies it for me. Writing `u’foo’` everywhere is a pain, and the rest of the 2.7 model is extraordinarily prone to runtime errors. With 3.6, I don’t have those problems.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#49I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't care for everything-is-unicode-by-default. You can take my Python 2 when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Yes, one of the most painful aspects of Python 2 to 3 migration.
I found the opposite. When having to deal with utf-8 text, I hated life in 2, but 3 handles it with ease. It made life so much better.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, for the longest time everyone kept using library support as an excuse for sticking with 2. But at this point I think it's the exception that a decent Python library doesn't support 3, rather than the rule. The only one that comes to mind for me is fabric, to be honest.
> The only one that comes to mind for me is fabric Speaking of Fabric, does anyone know of any Python 3 projects similar to it? I've been using Fabric3 since the switch but it's not a 1:1 port. I'd consider dropping it in favor of something better if it exists.
The Fabric dev(s) seem to be developing a v2 branch with Python 3 support: https://github.com/fabric/fabric/tree/v2
But I'm not sure how far along it is yet.